The clarion., 1887-11-02

in this article (H j., 1S4S, p. 644), that
SIC, ,222-2 20 arising from the sale of Sem
mary lands hsd been paid in there and |
lost.
Considering all the facts, it was no |
wonder that Gov. BRowN, whom the |
Senator will doubtless admit to be an /
authority, speaking of the University
said in his message of lS4S, Lone |
YEARS OF NEGLECT HAVE DIssIPATED |
A LARGE PORTION OF ITS ONCE MUNIFI- |
CENT ENDOWMENT - House Journal, |
1S4S, p. %
Such are unquestionsbly the facts.
For nine years we have an unbroken |
chain of the highest Testimony, as to
neglect, and ruinous losses by reason of |
that neglect. Now little law and | |
shall pass on.
In HI, on Trustees land there is no |
better law book, marginal page AZ, we
quently declared of CHOOSES IN ACTION, |
such as bonds, covenants, policies of in |
surance, or simple contract debts, and |
other property of that description, |
which is not at the moment in actual |
and tangible existence, and which can
be compulsorily realized only by suit or
trustee in all these cases, TO take every
necessary step, by suit, or action, or
otherwise, for realizing the CHOSE IN
ACTION at the time contemplated by the
trust. And if the fund be lost from
their neglect of this duty, they will be
held personally responsible for their
CEsTUI QUE TRUSTS for the loss, al
though they acted without any inn
GENT FOR THE TRUSTEE MERELY To AP-
PLY To THE DEBTOR FOR PAYMENT, But IT
Is HIS DUTY TO BRING AN ACTION, IF Ne
CEssARY FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE
AMOUNT. And it seems, that
the duty of realizing such securities
will be peculiarly imperative, where the
debt which is the subject of the trust,
is payable IN INsTALLMENTs, in which
case the trustees will not be Justified in
showing much indulgence to the debtor
on the non-payment of any installment.
SALES OF SEMINARY LANDs-HIGH PRICES
OBTAINED.
The Senator has much to say about
the alleged injustice of holding the State
liable for the prices brought by the Sem
mary Lands, because he says they were
sold to great advantage, and brought
more than other lands sold by the
United States for cash at the same time.
1t mig hit be sufficient to say in response
to this, that it was plainly the duty of
the State, when it assumed to sell these
lands at all, to sell them to the best ad
vantage; and when it does so, it GER
tainly is not thereby exonerated from
the obligation resting on it to discharge
its trust with fidelity and diligence in
every particular. 1t is novel PROPOSE
ton, that the performance of one duty
excuses the breach of Other duties; a
proposition that would be laughed at in
any court, of either law or equity, in all
the country. But waving that ques-
ton, the Senator's facts will not bear
examination. He seems to have writ
ten far and wide, to find out what other
lands sold at for cash, about the same
period; and finding that the sales aver
aged low, has jumped to two conclu-
sions first, that the sales were fair, and
| therefore proper standard of value
and secordly, that TIE lands sold were
OF equal value with the Seminary lands
| Neither conclusion is maintainable. The
clearing" OF these public sales, by com
| binatiCns OF purchasers, was notorious
through the country at the time, and is
plain in history since. Congress wa
constantly passing statutes 'Efor the sup
preston of fraudulent practices at th
public sales of the lands of the United
States;" the provision in the act of 1873
by which these lands of the Seminary
were required to be sold under valua
ton, had reference to this very fact
Nor is it true that the prices obtained
were at all phenomenal? If the U.
Statute of 25th February, 1881,
| turned to, it will be seen that there Con
gress adopts fourteen dollars per acre a
the dividing line, above or below which
certain reliefs may o. MY not be had
Surely, however, no argument or cita
| ton of facts Is necessary to show tina
twelve dollars per acre, in those times
when the country was "on a boom, wa
not an extraordinarily good price for tn
VERY PICKED LANDS OF ALL MISSISSIPPI
and lands a portion of which had beel
put into cultivation and were alread
| yielding about foIr thousand dollar
rent, at that. Were they "the yer.
picked lands of the State?" Let thi
statute answ er. 1t is the act of 2Stl
| November, 1921, concerning the loca
|
viding that the Governor be authorize,
to obtain the best information that cal
be procured as to the most suitable
lands in the Choctaw cession, and t
correspond with the Secretary of tn
Treasury of the United States, so tha
the location may be made PRIOR To TIL
sales of the public lands in the sal
ceded territory; and section 2 provide
that, with the assent of the Secretary
the Governor is empowered to appoint
person go EXPLORE THE TERRIToR
AFORESAID, AND REPORT To HIM WHER
THE MOST VALUABLE LANDS ARE sITI
ATED, and where it would be advisab
to locate" the land.
This tells the whole story
THE SALE OF THE SEMINARY LANDS,
TECHNICAL BREACH OF TRUST.
We have now seen that for several re;
sons, and each reason sufficient of itse
to fix its liability, the State is respons
BILE for all that portion of the Seminar
Fund invested in the Planters Ban
We have also seen that it is also lab
for all such portions of the Fund as wei
. uncollected.
Now, there is still another propositio
! which lies back of all those heretofol
advanced in this connection, and whic
applies to both the controverte
branches of this Fund. And thai
! | that whether the bank investment WI
/: in itself proper or not, and whether Il
: State was negligent or not in collecting
: | yet still, as trustee, IT HAD NO RIG HIT !
! ! CONVERT THE SEMINARY LANDS I'M
NOTES, or MONEY EITHER, and that
doing, it was guilty of technical breac
d of trust, whose effect was that il guara
e teed the safety and integrity of Il
|. Fund.
Let US turn to HILL on TRUSTEE
e again. In marginal page All, we rel
: as follows: ga trustee could rarely
J. justified in selling the trust estate f
t any purpose, however beneficial, wit
a out an au thority expressed or impli'
E conferred on him for that purpose by Il
e trust instrument; and wherever &
nature or duration of the trusts, or Il
II description of the property, renders Il
s necessity for a sale at all probable.
$ power of sale should never be omitted
1t is true, that power of sale will som
J, times be inferred, or implied; but on
L where it is necessary to the due exec
a ton of the trust.
Now, the sale of these lands was "n
n necessary to the due execution of t
If trust; on the contrary, it would ha
e been vastly better to have retain
L them, if they were wisely selected al
e wisely managed. Land is the basis
'e all prosperity; it is the most stable
h all property, and the most certain
IS and uniformly productive. Folly a
: improvidence can ruin it, it is true;
L can it ruin all other forms of propert
T, so has it ruined the form in
re which the Legislature put this pro
Is erty.
he Remember the facts The Congre
.E had been uusparing in its generosit
IL THE world was before them. where